Thoughts on software, AI, and company building, with occasional sneak peeks at P9’s kitchen table.

Summary (80–120 words): Christoph Janz announces partnering with Team Europe to form Point Nine Capital, an early-stage venture fund positioned as “The Angel VC.” The model combines venture capital resources with angel-like behavior: no large investment committees, faster decisions, and simple, founder-friendly terms (supporting the Seedsummit term sheet initiative). Janz frames the move from entrepreneur and angel investor to VC as a continuation of founder-focused investing, offering his network and the experience of partners like Pawel Chudzinski. The post situates Point Nine as following in the footsteps of Team Europe Ventures and references prior coverage, outlining an early-stage approach aiming to provide speed and alignment at the earliest stages. Search Terms & Synonyms (10–20 total): Angel VC, angel-VC hybrid, founder-friendly venture capital, simple term sheet, Seedsummit term sheet, seed-stage VC, early-stage investing, Point Nine Capital, Team Europe Ventures, Christoph Janz, Pawel Chudzinski, fast investment decisions, no investment committee, seed fund, startup funding, angel investor to VC transition

Summary (80–120 words): Christoph Janz explains why early-stage investors must decline most pitches and why founders often receive vague “too early” responses. He argues that high selectivity and large deal flow require triage, so only ~10% get deeper evaluation; the best VCs review hundreds per investment. Specific “no”s can be helpful; generic ones reflect limited excitement, expertise, or competing opportunities. Founders should recognize volume and timing effects beyond their control. Investors should make go/no-go criteria transparent and quantifiable; he cites Bessemer’s SaaS metric (e.g., CAC ratio above 1 merits aggressive spend and funding) as a model. He promises to publish his own criteria. Search Terms & Synonyms (10–20 total): venture capital rejection, investor pass reasons, VC deal flow, angel investing decision criteria, investment screening, startup pitch evaluation, “too early” feedback, founder traction requirements, metrics-driven investing, SaaS fundraising metrics, customer acquisition cost ratio (CAC), CAC payback and LTV/CAC, investor selectivity, venture pipeline triage, Bessemer 6Cs (Cloud Finance), transparent investment criteria, early-stage funding process, venture thesis and filters

Summary (80–120 words): The post questions the mantra that launching a web startup is now “10x cheaper.” Using DealPilot.com (1997) as evidence, the author shows a competitive service could be launched for about $100 in hosting, reach hosting break-even by month two, and add a ~$3,000 server later, with outside funding only nine months after launch. He distinguishes “state-of-the-art by contemporaneous standards” from shifting technology baselines (e.g., a 2011-competitive product might require an iPhone app that didn’t exist in 1998). He proposes that late-1990s mega-rounds reflected abundant capital and an arms race, not inherently higher build costs, and urges reconsidering the 10x narrative. Search Terms & Synonyms (10–20 total): startup costs, web startup cost, cost to launch an internet startup, bootstrapping, lean startup, open-source software, cheap hardware, cloud hosting, viral user acquisition, SEO for startups, Facebook/Twitter virality, venture capital funding, dot-com bubble IPOs, funding arms race, minimum viable product (MVP), 1990s vs 2010s startup economics, Christoph Janz, DealPilot